Jump to content

Will t$ protect their protectorate?


Critters
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Buorhann said:

And the problem?

Generally if one or two alliances dislike you, maybe it’s on them and not you.  But when half (over half?) of the community does - maaaaaybe it’s on you

Your right, we should all apologize to each other, sit and cuddle around a fire and sing camping sounds and ofc live happy ever after....  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

0b3897cd640f95254329f7a2d45d8c77b1c120e.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, George (James T Kirk) said:

Your right, we should all apologize to each other, sit and cuddle around a fire and sing camping sounds and ofc live happy ever after....  

Or you could just answer the question posited by the OP.

The answer is yes. Protect means protect. 

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

tS is a forum darling.

This is unverifiable until Alexsheepy adorns us with alliance bling.

One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, George (James T Kirk) said:

Your right, we should all apologize to each other, sit and cuddle around a fire and sing camping sounds and ofc live happy ever after....  

Not quite sure where you got that idea, but if thats what you think BK should do - perhaps give it a try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Buorhann said:

Not quite sure where you got that idea, but if thats what you think BK should do - perhaps give it a try.

Watch that wording, Buorhann. He didn't explicitly state whether it was happy or happily and that's the sort of wordy syntax we simply can't ignore these days. 

You never know when a direct ally, or some vaguely connected reaching af dumb posturing entity (Malalolol) might take advantage of a poorly worded statement such as yours. 

  • Haha 2

One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sisyphus said:

Or you could just answer the question posited by the OP.

The answer is yes. Protect means protect. 

This is unverifiable until Alexsheepy adorns us with alliance bling.

And by protecting a hostile alliance you were joining the war yourself in an aggressive manner. No one is questioning your right to attack BK, but it was clearly an aggressive action.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, George (James T Kirk) said:

You're* right(.) (W)e should all apologize to each other, sit and cuddle around a fire(,) sing camping sounds(,) and ofc live happy ever after....

I call Big Spoon.

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PhantomThiefB
On 10/2/2019 at 3:42 AM, Buorhann said:

You mean like how the logs leaked about timing N$Os attack on KETOG and BKsphere attack on Chaos?  You're upset because we took action ourselves after you adamantly denied knowing about it (While also contradicting yourself too)?

I'm confused with the problem here, aren't you guys not allied to Chaos via papers? What's the problem in this situation..? The way I see it, BK Sphere hitting Chaos alone would have nothing to do with KETOG by itself and if N$O had attacked KETOG by itself would that not be two separate wars between 4 mini-spheres going 1-1...? I mean wasn't that the idea behind mini spheres?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

I'm confused with the problem here, aren't you guys not allied to Chaos via papers? What's the problem in this situation..? The way I see it, BK Sphere hitting Chaos alone would have nothing to do with KETOG by itself and if N$O had attacked KETOG by itself would that not be two separate wars between 4 mini-spheres going 1-1...? I mean wasn't that the idea behind mini spheres?

No the idea was to dominate the game through informal relationships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

No the idea was to dominate the game through informal relationships.

Like the Informal one y'all maintained with NPO?

Edited by Pasky Darkfire

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

No the idea was to dominate the game through informal relationships.

Except that's precisely false.  

Of all the narratives you guys vomit out this really is the worst one, informal relationships were burned left and right in pursuit of more dynamic politics, it's unfortunate y'all have locked yourself into your little feedback loop or else you might've actually picked up on that.  

  • Upvote 1

One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Sisyphus said:

Except that's precisely false.  

Of all the narratives you guys vomit out this really is the worst one, informal relationships were burned left and right in pursuit of more dynamic politics, it's unfortunate y'all have locked yourself into your little feedback loop or else you might've actually picked up on that.  

It’s entirely true that the only interest is for BK and NPO to fight while no upper tier alliances truly commit. It’s obvious informal connections are still there when you see Rose being low paper, Rose opting in, ketog chaos collusion, t$/Kerchog collusion, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

I'm confused with the problem here, aren't you guys not allied to Chaos via papers? What's the problem in this situation..? The way I see it, BK Sphere hitting Chaos alone would have nothing to do with KETOG by itself and if N$O had attacked KETOG by itself would that not be two separate wars between 4 mini-spheres going 1-1...? I mean wasn't that the idea behind mini spheres?

Feel free to go back and re-read the leak.

When your alliance(s) constantly tried to interfere with our war in Surfs Up THEN have that leak happen, I’m sure it doesn’t take a genius to figure it out.

As for 1v1, you are aware that you attempted to dogpile again right?  So let’s nip that narrative in the bud.

Edited by Buorhann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

No, it was not. See: Sphinx quote.

He said, as he tightly squeezed Roquentins hand.

I for one am still incredibly close to all my old allies and friends, who did not hold knightfall against me in any way whatsoever! 

It wouldn't be pragmatic to do so, would it?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PhantomThiefB
1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

Feel free to go back and re-read the leak.

When your alliance(s) constantly tried to interfere with our war in Surfs Up THEN have that leak happen, I’m sure it doesn’t take a genius to figure it out.

As for 1v1, you are aware that you attempted to dogpile again right?  So let’s nip that narrative in the bud.

That wasn't a narrative, it was a hypothetical scenario that you were talking about. Which would have been before Surf's up. Why do I need to even explain this when you understood me completely yet choose to troll instead? It's concerning you even think I have a narrative.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

I for one am still incredibly close to all my old allies and friends, who did not hold knightfall against me in any way whatsoever! 

And you went inactive after you brokered the deal, and then your successor went inactive after he was tasked with implementing it, and you're not t$ gov now, so why do your old friendships matter here?

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

That wasn't a narrative, it was a hypothetical scenario that you were talking about. Which would have been before Surf's up. Why do I need to even explain this when you understood me completely yet choose to troll instead? It's concerning you even think I have a narrative.?

You’re right.  I’m replying to someone who absolutely has no idea on the talks that occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PhantomThiefB
2 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

You’re right.  I’m replying to someone who absolutely has no idea on the talks that occurred.

The grapevine is a thing of beauty indeed.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Edward I said:

And you went inactive after you brokered the deal, and then your successor went inactive after he was tasked with implementing it, and you're not t$ gov now, so why do your old friendships matter here?

It wasn't just my ties on the block when we decided to take a gamble on trusting you ;).

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

It wasn't just my ties on the block when we decided to take a gamble on trusting you ;).

I mean whatever strain is gone then and everyone is a big Wilhelm fan once more. He said he wanted to undo the FA damage Kayser and I did to tS and he's done it in spades.

You(tS) didn't take a gamble in any real sense on us unless the gamble was whether we'd be up for facilitating some sort of vendetta based on Camelot raids or something or facilitating everyone's dogpile on BK. You had us twisting ourselves into pretzels for you and one disagreement was enough to kill the relationship. You were not interested in working things out. You failed to inform you no longer valued NPO as an ally and that the decision had been made to move on from NPO until you pulled a fast one and signed new allies that had exited the war and essentially told us to go to hell.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.